I’ve been watching China’s ascent in cleantech for a couple of years. In that time China’s potential to leapfrog the U.S. has gone from talk to substantive examples of leadership. Even so, I’ve been surprised by the increasing frequency with which China is pushing ahead in new fronts of cleantech development.
Earlier this week, the latest surprise came from energy secretary Steven Chu, who’s been talking up China’s green progress in an effort to boost Washington’s resolve on clean tech policy.
In a talk at the National Press Club, with characteristic forceful clarity (PDF of slides), Chu illuminated the growing list of sectors where China’s emerging leadership threatens U.S. players, and added leadership in supercomputing as the most recent Sino-superlative. China’s success in these technologies represents a “Sputnik Moment” for the United States, Chu said.
“When it comes to innovation, Americans don’t take a back seat to anyone — and we certainly won’t start now,” said Secretary Chu at the event. “From wind power to nuclear reactors to high-speed rail, China and other countries are moving aggressively to capture the lead. Given that challenge, and given the enormous economic opportunities in clean energy, it’s time for America to do what we do best: innovate.”
China’s ascent to the top of the list for supercomputing speed reveals a new front in this race. Last month China’s Tianhe-1A, developed by Chinese defense researchers, became the world’s fastest supercomputer, with a performance level of 2.57 petaflop/s (quadrillions of calculations per second, for all the geeks in our audience, based on a standard test), substantially eclipsing the U.S. DOE’s Cray XT5 “Jaguar” system at Oak Ridge national labs in Tennessee, which runs at 1.75 petaflop/s. Third place is also held by a Chinese computer.
Supercomputers may seem long way from grid-competitive solar panels, long-range electric car batteries, or other cleantech gizmos, but advanced computational simulation is the keystone of most leading-edge scientific research, including nuclear energy, nanotech and materials science, proteomics and other advanced biotech applications. Basically, any very advanced science these days needs big computing horsepower. Leadership on the fastest-computer league tables has been traded off many times, between U.S., Japanese and European computing centers. China is a relative newcomer to the race, but is clearly the new elite.
Chu highlighted several crucial technologies — mostly in the areas of power generation and transportation — where China is already outpacing U.S. efforts, adding the U.S. must innovate or risk falling far behind. The following is from the DOE:
• High Voltage Transmission. China has deployed the world’s first Ultra High Voltage AC and DC lines — including one capable of delivering 6.4 gigawatts to Shanghai from a hydroelectric plant nearly 1300 miles away in southwestern China. These lines are more efficient and carry much more power over longer distances than those in the United States.
• High-Speed Rail. In the span of six years, China has gone from importing this technology to exporting it, with the world’s fastest train and the world’s largest high-speed rail network, which will become larger than the rest of the world combined by the end of the decade. Some short distance plane routes have already been cancelled, and train travel from Beijing to Shanghai (roughly equivalent to New York to Chicago) has been cut from 11 hours to 4 hours.
• Advanced Coal Technologies. China is rapidly deploying supercritical and ultra-supercritical coal combustion plants, which have fewer emissions and are more efficient than conventional coal plants because they burn coal at much higher temperatures and pressures. Last month, Secretary Chu toured an ultra-supercritical plant in Shanghai which claims to be 45 to 48 percent efficient. The most efficient U.S. plants are about 40 percent efficient. China is also moving quickly to design and deploy technologies for Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants as well as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).
• Nuclear Power. China has more than 30 nuclear power plants under construction, more than any other country in the world, and is actively researching fourth generation nuclear power technologies.
• Alternative Energy Vehicles. China has developed a draft plan to invest $17 billion in central government funds in fuel economy, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, electric and fuel cell vehicles, with the goal of producing 5 million new energy vehicles and 15 million fuel-efficient conventional vehicles by 2020.
• Renewable Energy. China is installing wind power at a faster rate than any nation in the world, and manufactures 40 percent of the world’s solar photovoltaic (PV) systems. It is home to three of the world’s top ten wind turbine manufacturers and five of the top ten silicon-based PV manufacturers in the world.
• Supercomputing. Last month, the Tianhe-1A, developed by China’s National University of Defense Technology, became the world’s fastest supercomputer. While the United States — and the Department of Energy in particular — still has unrivalled expertise in the useful application of high performance computers to advance scientific research and develop technology, America must continue to improve the speed and capacity of our advanced supercomputers.
Next page: Two research areas where the U.S. still leads
When it comes to reducing fossil fuel use, increasing energy efficiency has obvious appeal: help the environment, boost energy security and save money, too—without the grit-your-teeth-and-get-by-without attitude of 1970s-style energy conservation. Not only that, but boosting the amount of work we squeeze out of each kWh or Btu is the cheapest, most plentiful and fastest tool we have for moving toward a more sustainable energy future. Many efficiency fixes, experts point out, save so much it would be foolish to ignore them.
Americans have made some moves to enhance efficiency: Per capita energy use has fallen by 14 percent in the past three decades in the U.S., and since 1970 the energy necessary to create each dollar of GDP has been halved. Still, based on comparisons with other countries, that figure could well be halved again. And a recent report by the National Academies suggests Americans could reduce energy use 17 to 22 percent by 2020 and 25 to 31 percent by 2030 if we adopt existing and emerging energy efficiency technologies.
Why isn’t this “low-hanging fruit,” as efficiency is invariably called, being plucked? In the face of logic, incentives, regulatory mandates, new efficiency-enhancing technologies and even moral imperative, consumers remain surprisingly ambivalent about, or even muddled by, the options. Part of the problem is how human behavior often stymies better intentions. Another factor is the more banal reality that bureaucracy and a lack of capital can slow any revolution in its tracks, no matter how cost-effective it might be.
“The potential to reduce the energy we waste is compelling,” Kenneth J. Ostrowski, a senior partner at global management consulting firm McKinsey & Co., said in announcing a 2009 study of the U.S. economy. “However, to unlock the full potential, we need a coordinated national and regional strategy to overcome barriers and scale up the deployment of existing energy efficiency technologies.”
Consider the Value
First, take a step back and consider the value efficiency offers.
In an influential study published in 2008, psychologists Gerald T. Gardner and Paul C. Stern assessed the impact of around 30 steps households could take toward increasing their energy efficiency, all using currently available technologies. The sum of the efforts, they found, could cut U.S. home energy use by up to 30 percent. Since residences account for nearly one-third of total energy use, these savings could trim 11 percent from overall U.S. energy consumption.
In its 2009 report, McKinsey identified waste and other savings opportunities amounting to 23 percent of the U.S. energy pie, excluding the transportation sector. The cost of energy-saving upgrades, McKinsey found, could be entirely paid for within a few years by the resulting reduction in spending on energy. For a total investment of $520 billion, the U.S. could trim some $1.2 trillion from its energy costs by 2020. “Energy efficiency should be elevated to a national priority,” said Ostrowski.
The savings would be greater still if the calculation considers future innovation, says David Goldstein, energy program co-director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. In his 2010 book Invisible Energy, Goldstein estimated savings of 80 percent are possible by 2050 if we include technologies now in the pipeline, as well as those likely to be introduced given what we know about the pace of innovation.
Commenting on a National Academy of Sciences study estimating that energy savings of 30 percent are possible with today’s technology, Goldstein points out that by factoring in improvements in these technologies, the efficiency resource balloons in size to trillions of dollars of growth potential.
Culprit: Confusion
So if these gains are waiting to be made, what’s holding up the great efficiency revolution?
One culprit seems to be confusion. Consumers face a challenge connecting big, abstract gains with more familiar day-to-day decisions, such as installing CFL lightbulbs. And Americans are — for now, at least — so muddled about energy and efficiency that we’re largely unable to identify best choices about how to cut consumption.
In 2009, a research team led by Shahzeen Attari at Columbia University’s Center for Research on Environmental Decisions surveyed 505 subjects to assess their perceptions of energy consumption and savings for a variety of household, transportation and recycling activities. The team found that subjects sometimes overstated the impact of visible actions that offered relatively little energy savings, while profoundly underestimating the impact of less-visible steps that saved 10 or even 100 times more energy. While the test did not formally include cost estimates, the data suggest that respondents tended to underestimate choices with bigger impacts that were more costly.
Interestingly, respondents who identified themselves as eco-minded tended to be less accurate than the general public. Emphasizing that the study wasn’t testing the causes of these misconceptions, Attari points out, “The well intentioned may focus on behaviors that they do, and pay less attention to the ones they don’t do.”
But the study offers one piece of the puzzle to help encourage efficiency: Enlighten consumers about their consumption. Some utilities, for example, are tinkering with household gizmos designed to deliver data to residents so they can see their energy use. That kind of personalized instant feedback on gains made may be just what people need to make pursuing energy efficiency seem worth their while — particularly if reducing energy use is tied to something that makes a difference to them.
High costs, such as the price tag for insulation or a new, energy-efficient furnace, can be a barrier to major green upgrades.
“Go after what matters most to a consumer,” says Attari. “If they care about security, talk about energy independence. If they care about economics, talk about cost savings. If they care about their grandkids, talk about protecting future generations. If they care about biodiversity and species extinction, talk about polar bears.”
Set the Pace
Consumers are quick to state a willingness to pay for green features. But in practice, another impediment to adopting energy efficiency measures is our aversion to paying large amounts up front, even if the investment promises long-term savings. High costs, such as the price tag for insulation or a new, energy-efficient furnace, can be a barrier to major green upgrades.
Some cities have pioneered an innovative solution to this problem. Adapting a model historically used to pay for sewer systems, sidewalks and other public works, planners in Berkeley, Calif., devised an approach — called Property Assessed Clean Energy, or PACE — that financed the up-front costs of big-ticket efficiency investments by issuing a bond. Property owners could, in turn, borrow those public funds to pay for green upgrades. To pay back the loan, homes that tapped into PACE funds see their taxes rise incrementally over 20 years.
“PACE helps consumers get past the hurdle of paying up-front costs,” said Claire Danielle Tomkins, director of research at the Carbon War Room, at the Business Climate 2010 conference in New York.
To date, more than 20 states have passed laws enabling PACE programs. Perversely, however, Washington stymied the progress of PACE deployments. In the wake of the global financial crisis, federal authorities blocked mortgages attached to PACE bonds, arguing that the added payments increase a borrower’s monthly costs and thereby add risk to still sickly mortgage markets.
Rebound
Interestingly, thanks again to human nature, even implementing measures that improve efficiency will not necessarily result in reduced energy use.
Households that installed high-efficiency washing machines also boosted washing volume 5.6 percent.
One challenge is something called the “rebound effect”, or Jevons paradox. By definition, greater efficiency lowers the cost to use a resource or technology. But as goods and services grow cheaper, people tend to consume more of them .
When these two dynamics collide, efficiency gains can be diluted by increases in use. One study found that households with high-efficiency washing machines boosted the volume of washing they did on average by 5.6 percent. This increase didn’t negate the 40 to 50 percent reductions in water and energy consumption the units delivered, but it did erode total efficiency gains, according to a 2008 RAND paper by economist Lucas Davis.
For another twist on how human nature can stymie efficiency’s efforts to cut energy use, consider America’s love affair with big, fast cars. The technology to dramatically boost vehicle efficiency has been progressing for decades, but technology upgrades that could have saved energy have instead gone to soup up performance. While mileage barely budged between 1990 and now, average horsepower surged 77 percent, to around 230 today. As a result, today’s mild-mannered Toyota Sienna minivan offers about as much horsepower as Ford’s fastest ’72 Mustang.
More Carrots, More Sticks
Alas, there is no single fix for efficiency elusiveness. Logjams like the PACE policy must be dismantled one by one. And because human behavior is so complex, approaches to altering it must take many forms.
For now, incentives are the most politically saleable strategy to induce efficiency savings. As part of the 2009 stimulus bill, the U.S. Department of Energy doled out hundreds of millions to boost efficiency programs.
More vigorous mandates are making a comeback, too. Most visible, perhaps, has been the rollout of higher mileage standards for cars. And in 2010, DOE announced dozens of tough penalties against companies selling appliances, plumbing and lighting without certifying that they meet energy and/or water efficiency standards. Such well-crafted rules promise to speed change while obviating many of the psychological traps that can distract consumers. When we can’t opt for a less-efficient technology, our purchasing decisions get easier.
There may even be a public appetite for a yet heavier regulatory hand. A national survey conducted by the Mellman Group for the Union of Concerned Scientists suggests consumers may prefer tougher mileage rules. The study found that about 74 percent of voters favor tougher federal goals requiring that average fuel efficiency rise to 60 mpg by 2025. Two-thirds supported the goal even if it meant a $3,000 premium on the sticker price, assuming that could be recouped in savings at the pump within four years.
Perhaps the biggest motivator of all could end up to be the market. The sharp oil price spike of 2008 caused an unprecedented stampede away from gas-guzzling vehicles and triggered broader efforts to cut energy use. Similar increases in the cost of electricity or natural gas could do much to motivate consumers to cut back by improving their energy efficiency.
Advocates for a tax on carbon emissions generated by energy use argue such a fee would trigger the adoption of energy efficiency measures in an orderly fashion by preventing such on-again, off-again shifts toward efficient technologies. Better to create an incentive to put efficient systems into place ahead of time, they argue, than to wait for unpredictably high energy prices to return and force these shifts chaotically.
Indeed, better we all learn efficiency-improving behaviors while we can afford to.
A version of this feature originally appeared in the Fall 2010 issue of Momentum magazine, Ensia’s predecessor.
In balmy Cancun, at a U.N. conference on climate change, China and the U.S. remain the elephants-in-the-room of all discussions. Both are more focused on the commercial potential of climate-related technology than on any environmental goals that could impair economic growth. Such a focus should sell better in Washington, but it’s an area where the U.S. is lagging, and China’s lead is growing.
U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, speaking at the National Press Club earlier last week called China’s mounting successes in clean energy a “Sputnik moment” for the U.S.
In 1957, a refrigerator-sized sphere transmitting a steady radio signal was lofted into orbit by the Soviet Union, sparking a generation of U.S. technical and scientific discovery. But it took decades for satellite technology to become a commercial market.
Now, in clean technologies, China is racing into well-established, fast-growing markets U.S. players are eyeing hungrily. Chu named the most vulnerable areas, where the U.S. must innovate quickly, or risk falling behind…
